then we'll take a look at the group wikileaks. our guest is journalist josh mire. "washington journal" is live with your calls next. ♪ host: good morning on this tuesday, july 16, 2013, "the new york times" calls it a shutdown on the senate floor after the close of the three-and-a-half lastlosed-door meeting night. majority leader harry reid indicated he may use the so- called nuclear option on votes scheduled later today. we want to get your take on the possibility of changing the filibuster. the numbers

send us a tweet at twitter.com @cspanwj. span, andcom/c- journal@c-span.org to send us an e-mail. we will get your your phone calls and thoughts in a minute. the takeaway washington correspondent for public radio international joins us. we said the headline, no deal was reached after this closed- door session. why not? exactly what knows happened except those 100 senators and the small handful of staffers in the room. were leaving the room, trickling out last night, you heard a couple of different takes on what went on. the standard bromides, the washington code speak, frank

and open discussions, these words that do not tell you much, but you got a couple of real pieces of information. senators on both sides said they felt like the sides understood each other better. a couple of democrats said that they thought republicans had a better understanding, that they feel president obama has been disrespected by the senate in his nominees, that he has not received the level of respect and deference that other presidents have received. republicans on the other hand thought that they felt better that heavy-handed tactics from senator reid were keeping them out of the process, but both sides say they understood each other. what does this mean? proposal from senator mccain and others to try to circumvent this nuclear option. senators on both sides including some members of the leadership, john cornyn, the republican whip, said he thought that averting the crisis, the nuclear

option was still possible. were he thought the sides closer together. there was one other piece of news that is significant. senator john thune, a republican, also said he thought that one of the most controversial votes -- the nomination of richard cordray to head up the consumer financial protection bureau, this is one of the controversial areas we will see, he said that he thought republicans were going to provide the votes to get him through. that is a concession. it is not the key concession because the national labor relations board is the big issue. that is a little more complicated. it was news that senator john thune said he thought republicans were going to let richard cordray go. john mccain said that was not clear, that all of these votes were interrelated. it depends on what happens with the other votes. these things go piece by piece. letting cordray go is a bit of

the news. host: that happens at around 11:00 a.m. eastern time. if cordray goes through, is each of these nominees a test vote on the so-called nuclear option? guest: that is really hard to know. if you listen to senator reid and what he said in a speech at the center for american progress yesterday morning, he was answering questions from reporters. the question that i asked was, is it seven or nothing? he said, we will not stop filibustering these nominees. or else i will put a stop to this. the question was, if senator mcconnell and republicans give you five, is that enough? do you need four or six, what is the wiggle room? is negotiating so he said seven or nothing. if you take him at his word, it is seven or nothing. on the other hand, if they lead

cordray go, the next big issue is the national labor relations board. here is what republicans want -- not only do they not like the two nominees in their from president obama, but there is also a huge separation of powers issue. republicans believe the nominees were appointed, recess appointed illegally. president obama deciding that the senate was out of session when senators thought they were in session. he appointed these people because republicans were blocking them. the national labor relations board cannot function without a quorum. they want those two nominees swapped out for two other nominees that they can vote on. democrats are refusing. they think this is their imperative and the president's imperative. that is even more controversial than richard cordray. those appointments are in front of the supreme court. rulece anthony kennedy may on that and is scheduled to rule on that. you can see that it is really just seven orn

nothing. yes, senator reid said that, but this is an ongoing negotiation. i think it is unlikely that you are going to see democrats say today as these votes progress, no, it is seven or there is no more talking. nobody coming out of the room last night said that was the dynamic going on. on the other hand, there is no agreement, and senator reid is under enormous pressure from the left and from many of his own senators to pull that trigger if they do not get everything. we are going to have to see how these votes play out. before votes are important, but the behind the scenes to go sheesh and's that will be going on and senator reed's office and on the phone are just as important. to put some names to the nominations you were talking about for the national labor relations board. that would be richard griffin, sharon block, and mark guest imperious. those nominees at issue for republicans who are against the board to begin with, correct? guest: they have always had a

problem with the way the board functions, and it is true. they do have a problem with the way it functions pretty i do not think they are expecting to outlaw this board in exchange for getting rid of these nominees. it was really the way the nominees were recess appointed, and the nominees themselves. it was the way they were appointed that has republicans really crazy. incidentally, under the statute, that board needs a bipartisan koran to function. if there are no -- not enough members by august 1, it cannot function at all. democrats are concerned about that. host: let's go to these negotiations. we heard from senator thune after the meeting last night that now it was in the hands of senator reed and senator mcconnell and that they were going to continue talking. do we know that in fact those two sat down or over the phone and continue talking through the night, and could a deal possibly be announced before this morning's first round of votes? guest: they said that

negotiations would be going on during the night. i cannot tell you that they were up at 3:00 a.m. talking or texting. not forget john mccain is at the middle of this -- it is true it is up to the leaders, but you have to remember something important. thune said it was up to the leaders, but that is never 100% true. has 53 -- 54 democrats in his caucus, including the independence. if a gang forms, like it did in 2005 with a gang of 14, when the gang of 14 formed, that circumvented the leaders who were going to do something that the senators do not want. if a bipartisan gang of senators forms and refuses to vote for the nuclear option, that totally takes out the power of reid. i'm not saying that is going to

happen, but their negotiation is important, but it is not the only thing. mccain is involved in talking to senator reid, trying to get some agreement that involves swapping nominees that republicans do not like. it doesn't mean democrats will go for it, but that is one of the fulcrum's. the cordray vote is a concession. democrats will like that. it will make them look pretty good in front of their base after 11:00 if cordray goes through. that is something that liberals and democrats really want. they will feel a little bit better about the process after they get that. maybe that will grease up negotiations. host: does senator reid have all 54 votes or 51 votes? how many votes does he need if he goes forward with the nuclear option, and does he have all democrats and two independents on board? guest: he does not have all democrats between 03 that are not with him. senator carl levin has never for

this. he says changes -- changing the rules are a bad idea. yor of arkansas is not for it. there is one other senator, i'm blanking on the third, the question is, does reid have 54? does he have 51? he says he does. does vice president joe biden show up? he only needs 50 because the vice president can break a tie. the white house would not touch the question yesterday of whether senator -- vice used tot joe biden, who be a senator, presides over the senate constitutionally, would show up and preside over this. they want to keep an arms length from this and let this be a senate issue. if biden has to show up, maybe he would, but that would give reid the leeway of one more vote. host: what is the role of president obama and all of this?

arm's-length good press secretary jay carney said yesterday that the white house wants a rug -- a resolution. he would not say if biden would would show up. clearly saying that the president is set up with his nominees being -- is fed up with his nominees being held up for the consumer financial protection bureau, the national labor relations board. do not forget the epa nominee, department of labor. republicans are willing to let those cabinet level positions go. the president has to appoint a homeland security secretary. senator mcconnell refused to say that republicans would advise and consent and let the president have his nominee. is thinking about getting a new homeland security secretary without a lot of headaches from republicans, and the white house is fed up. to oure will turn viewers next. in order to set this up for them on this question of whether or not they think, people outside

of washington, think that there should be changes to the filibuster rules, what has the gop said in retaliation what they might do if senate democrats go forward? guest: a couple things -- if you change the rules in this way -- it is taking away the ability to filibuster nominees, and it is how you do it. both of those things are important. mitch mcconnell and others have said if you do this, the senate will stop until 2014. nothing will go through. if you want to get immigration reform done with the conference report, if you want to do other things, if you want to do a fiscal deal aside from appropriations, we may even have a government shutdown. you do this, and the senate is finished. this ise also said -- something every democrat and every liberal has to think about -- you guys are not going to be in the majority forever. you will set a precedent that

the minority cannot filibuster a presidential nominee, and we may win the senate in 2014. if we do not, we will win it in the future. the show will be on the other foot. it will not be just executive nominees. there will be a precedent that the majority if they want to rule this place can just use this nuclear option procedure that senator reed is contemplating and that republicans contemplated into a thousand five, and next time it'll be judicial appointments, supreme court nominees. it'll be legislation, and then eventually the filibuster may die. then the senate becomes a majority very and body. followf you want to todd's reporting, you can do so on twitter. away.org.o thetake thank you for your time this morning. let me turn to all of you and get your take on all of this. what do you think about changing

the filibuster rules when it comes to executive nominations? what do you think is next? jason and nashville, tennessee. -- in a nashville, tennessee. caller: i want to say, thank you for letting me on. i was raised a democrat. i voted for obama. i believe in hope and change. i read his book "audacity of hope" where he spoke a little bit about changing this in the senate. , comingteresting to me from the perspective of somebody who really did believe in this man, and really did believe that he was intending on changing things for the better, to see that we have had numerous executive -- out-of-control executive actions. this man has gotten to the point where we can actually honestly -- and have the

backing that appointees, that he is putting in place, have actually hurt us. these people are appointees in places that are doing extremely important things for our country, and those things might potentially be disastrous if they put the wrong people in. for instance, janet napolitano. police and that our the united states are becoming more militarized. we understand they are spending lots of money on drone technology, bullets, ammunition that is used for "target practice," and anybody who understands anything about ammunition understands that hollow points are not used for that. host: let me cut to the chase. minority in the senate, the right to filibuster

nominations based on the idea that they might disagree with the ideology of that person and the agency they run? not necessarily the ideology. what it comes down to me, anyway, is we are supposed to live in a system of checks and balances. any american keeping their eyes open can see, those checks and balances are slowly being destroyed by a system of world banker kinds of corporate governance that can also be called fascism. the nsa spying pretty much shows you - host: i've got to leave it there. john and pennsylvania, an independent color. caller: this whole thing is a joke. the puppet masters that control the republicans do not want to govern. they do not want them to govern. they are going to pull back

their campaign contributions to these guys. they do not work for the american people. they work for the 1%. the republicans want to grind dust.lb into they want to do away with the consumer protection group. that does not help the vast majority of america. it helps the 1% because there will be low wages, as we have been going for the last 30 years . it is just cover. it is just baloney. for mcconnell to get up there and say it is a dark day in the senate, it has been a dark day since the republicans even had 40 people. they only represent about 25% of the population of the united states. they are all from these non- populated states like idaho and montana. host: thomas on twitter says

brian in michigan, a democratic caller. caller: i'm quite certain that the 421 filibusters in the last five years is not only unprecedented, it is a sign that the republicans have no intention of cooperating in this government. they do not want to let mr. obama have anything that he needs. it is just they are dragging feet. they are doing the same thing they were doing five years ago. reaction me get your to this great fear is a chart put together by the senate republican policy committee. -- this. here is a chart put together by the senate republican policy committee

what is your reaction? caller: my reaction is that is fine for the ones they have confirmed, but the ones that have been sitting out there waiting, there have been people waiting 700 days. have 500, -- 5, 6, 7 months. questionsdid for five , averaged in 15 minutes and committee. it is ridiculous. due diligence is one thing. due silliness is what it is. host: "usa today" has these numbers

raymond in wisconsin, an independent color. caller: good morning. the consumer financial protection board is the one that sticks in my craw. that was developed by elizabeth warren who has been in the senate for how many years? we still do not have somebody running it. i have not heard an explanation from republicans why any of the nominees have been suitable. they have not offered one because they do not like the idea of the board. no, i did not vote for barack obama last time. i think some of the things he does are despicable. the nsa thing to begin with. but the fact remains that the board has been around. it was approved by legislation. it was signed into law by president obama. now it is time to have somebody headed the agency. otherwise, if it is leaderless, how can it operate? i have not heard a reasonable explanation for why they have help this person up, whether it be elizabeth warren or mr.

richard cordray. i hear all kinds of, the democrats did this, but i have not heard a sound explanation from mitch mcconnell or any of the other right-wingers as to why they are holding this up other than they do not like the idea of consumers being protected by this agency. work they do not like the of the consumer board, as well as the national labor relations board. if you tune into c-span 2 this morning, you will probably hear arguments against those two agencies, the work they do, the nominees that president obama has put forth. our coverage on c-span 2 of the toate when the test votes get underway, they come in around 10:00 a.m. eastern. of richardote cordray is expected around 11:00 a.m., and then senator reid will put forth all the other nominees we talked about this morning. our coverage then on c-span 2 will continue when the senate

recesses for their luncheon. that is when both parties gather and discuss the agenda. span 2, we30 on c- will be taking your calls and your tweets in reaction to what you heard on the senate floor leading up to that in this overall debate over changing filibuster rules. at 12:30 pmtreat us eastern time today on c-span 2. a little bit more about our coverage on "washington journal ." we will continue talking about this for the first two hours of this morning's "washington journal." later we will -- we will be joined by bernie sanders of vermont, and republican senator john barrasso joining us. here is a tweet from bernie sanders who tweeted this we will be talking to both of those senators coming up here on

"washington journal." let's go to stanley, north carolina, a republican caller. you know, i have been listening to the last three or four colors, and there is a and there -- callers, is little bit of credence to each of them. to me, the issue is bigger than the democrats or republicans right now. i think that we have possibly the worst leader in the senate in the history of america in harry reid. at what hisback body of work has been over the last six years, it is terrible. some of the comments that he has , like when wetime were trying to get a budget put through, and they go for years, and they do not get anything through, and then he comes out and makes this smug, arrogant

comments about the great have ad, and we had to bathroom just for us, 4 million dollars, we do not want to mix with the people that we actually -- we are actually paying their salary -- under his leadership, it has been nothing but andumvent what is the law absolutely -- he just makes , and helook like a fool has just shut down congress. let's hear from eric here in washington, d.c., an independent. caller: this is eric from d.c. i appreciate you taking my call. believe -- this is my personal feeling, that they are trying to do -- i'm talking about the

democrats -- they are trying to do what they can in the senate to pass rules that can streamline the process and actually get work done. toy are paid to go washington to do a job. unfortunately because of the person that is in the head of seat, the seat, they are not allowing him to do his job. of whato piggyback off a couple callers said in regards to that consumer board. that consumer board was passed. it is law. it is an agency that stood up. let's give these people in these positions their mission. host: what do you make of this tweet -- the same believe that thing applies for democrats, republicans, or whoever is in power. if you are the head of a company, you should have the ability to pick your board. it is what it is good i should have my supporting staff with me

to execute the mission. host: all right. a little bit more color about last nights meeting. this from "the washington post" -- the meeting lasted about three and a half hours. it also says

this is not judiciary and nominations are lifetime appointments. gary in kalamazoo, -- michigan, a democratic caller. caller: i agree with what eric said. the reason the filibuster should go, and it should go for all things, is so the senate can actually function and get work done. people are worried about the minority taking too much power. house --a republican the democrats passing things in the senate are not going to run roughshod over the company. if the people want an all republican or a democratic congress, then they should put their agenda forward. you will have orenstein on here pretty soon. you will be able to explain it a lot better than me. this is unprecedented in the way the minority, republicans, have jammed up president obama's

ability to run the government. it just proves what a filibuster must go, not just for these appointments. the republicans do not talk about the backlog of empty positions in the judicial branch. it is criminal. that we cannot actually operate our justice system because we have all of these vacancies that are not being filled because they are being held up in the senate. host: we are going to be talking to norm ornstein, a congressional historian and author of the book "it is even worse than it looks." laura onwitter says -- twitter says we will keep taking your thoughts on this. some other news, on immigration, here is "the baltimore sun" --

he supports some sort of pathway to citizenship and spoke to his colleagues about the economic benefits of immigration reform. it says in here that is the latest on immigration. then from "the washington post" on immigration, they have this front page story

you can see the picture that goes along with the story, showing a central american migrants riding on top of a freight train heading towards mexico's northern border in april. such railroad journeys are often fraught with danger. those stories on immigration. then on the zimmerman verdict and what is next, the attorney general eric holder has said that his agency will continue to look into whether or not george zimmerman violated civil rights laws. "the washington post" headline attorney general eric holder

will be talking about this issue today in orlando before the naacp. we will have coverage on c- 4:00 p.m.,arting at and go to our website to find out when that will air. related to that story, the front page of "the hill" -- some of the headlines this morning after the verdict came out, acquitting george zimmerman on saturday. we will show you some other headlines as we continue, the no your take on filibuster deal reached last night when senators met in the old senate chamber. senator reid has set up test votes today in the senate. our coverage on c-span 2 starting when they come in around 10:00 a.m., in the first book expected around 11:00. patterson in oklahoma, and independent color -- caller.

let's try that again. caller: a few points about the filibuster situation. part of it is all about the inability of the republican ,arty to destroy the new deal especially a linchpin of which was the national labor relations act, and the reason that was passed was to bring the conflicts off the streets. people were getting killed. a we cannot maintain functioning of the national labor relations board, it is going to get that way again. voters-- there are many who have guns, and they are not going to sit forever and watch this massacre of our government. interviews -- the

interviews of the appointees on c-span. not one was questioned in any way about his or her ability. it is a naked power grab by these right-wing nuts. you would have thought that they would've learned their lesson with elizabeth warren, because they stopped her from having the agency, and then they got a senator for it. then they appointed an even more moderate guy who was praised by republicans, cordray who was praised by republicans in the state of ohio. the last time i checked, the republicans in the state of ohio were a bunch of middle-of-the- road or's -- roaders. host: arnold says this on twitter carol in annapolis, a democratic

caller. caller: i am a lawyer. i have been a lawyer for years. it is heart-wrenching to see what the republicans are doing to our government. every single american can read the constitution and see, it is crystal clear -- the only time you need a super majority is for impeachment or treaties or removing a member of congress. they are very specific. our founding fathers warned that if you require a super majority for every other vote other than what is in the constitution, the minority will cripple the government. which is exactly what we see. we see republicans use process over substance, they claim that they are interested in the government, but they want to kill the government. there are complaints about these nominees. they do not talk about the competency of the nominees. let's assume that they were thegally appointed per

supreme court. look at the nominees and regular order, discuss their competence, and vote up or down, and move on. talkingblicans keep about, what about when you are in the minority? we worked very hard to vote for a democratic president. we elected a democratic president and senators. now they are caving on us. go back to majority rule. that is a democracy. are usingicans process. they are hiding in the woods. they are stealing our government. get rid of the filibuster for everything, and let's get governing going and let's save now.overnment and move we need our democrats to have some spine to support our constitution. host: on facebook, here are some comments for you

roanoke, virginia, a democratic caller. caller: thank you so much. i just want to say one thing -- the republicans told you, told us years ago, they said, we hope obama fails. that explains it all. we heard earlier this morning from a reporter about last nights meeting, all but two senators, two of the 100 senators, attended that meeting. long.and-a-half hours after that meeting was over, we heard from senators including majority leader harry reid. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> the night is late. we have been no breaks. we have been going steady. we have had a very good conversation, and the conversation will continue tonight. the votes are scheduled at 10:00

in the morning. that was the majority leader after the meeting with all the senators. we also heard from senator john thune, republican of south dakota. a member of the republican leadership. here is what he had to say. [video clip] bei think it is going to difficult for republicans are doing that they were illegally appointed. that is an awfully difficult thing to turn the other way on. there are a lot of republicans who would vote for nomination -- nominations if democrats were allowed to do that -- if democrats were to do that read the discussions continue. the mentors reid and mcconnell are talking. -- senators reid and mcconnell are talking. maybe it will yield a result before it is all said and done. proposals?ific >> none other than the obvious, which is give us six republican

votes for cloture and this can be avoided. .r do not do the nuclear option if this were to happen, does this mean we will not have another threat to change the rules this session of congress? nobody's willing to make any kind of those hard types of commitments. thune,enator john republican of south dakota, talking with a big school of reporters after last nights three and a half hour meeting with all senators who met in the old senate chamber. no deal was reached. they will come to the floor today. our coverage on c-span up around 10:00 a.m. the first vote is expected around 11:00 a.m. then the two sides will recess for their weekly senate luncheon. at that point, we will take your calls and tweets and facebook comments. around 12:30 p.m. eastern time on c-span 2, getting your reaction to what you heard on the senate floor and last nights meeting about possibly changing the senate filibuster rules when it comes to executive nominees,

a version of the so-called nuclear option. we will keep taking your phone from, but first, here is "the wall street journal" -- we heard from edward snowden he was would -- that seeking asylum in russia. russia had told him that they would only grant it to him if he stopped political activity. here is a picture of the president, diving in a deep-sea submersible in the gulf of finland on monday to view the wreckage from 1869. that is the latest on the nsa leaker. then from "the washington post" on egypt

in other overseas news on afghanistan from "the wall street journal" -- the headline indicating that that could get underway again. then from "the houston chronicle" --

a little bit more from the president after the meeting with george h w bush. take a look. [video clip] >> now i think we are going to have neil, up -- come up. do we have the microphone? here we go. my remarks are simply to say something nice about neil. [laughter] it is not hard to do. he has been very active in this whole concept. volunteering, helping others. it is my privilege to introduce neil, and i want to thank the president and mrs. obama for this wonderful hospitality. it is like coming home for barbara and me. house to this magnificent and being greeted by this superb hospitality. it knows no bounds. thank you all very much. [applause]

host: george h w bush at the white house yesterday. the homecoming of sorts is what he had to say. very interested in watching -- if you are interested in watching the whole thing, go to c-span.org. here is from politico this is one of her top aides. the capitol police spokesman chez wast javier san arrested on thursday after an investigation. he was arrested for theft, allegedly stealing less than $1000 worth of goods. s political reporting on that. and political news this morning, here is from "the new york post" -- eliot spitzer 48%, anthony weiner 25%. virginia governor's race for this november, mcauliffe raised

nearly $2 million in june -- mary ellen, detroit, michigan, an independent color -- caller. what are your thoughts on changing the filibuster? caller: i do not think it is going to happen. there will never be any results between democrats and republicans. never. host: what do you mean? caller: the abortion issue will always keep us divided. i am a strict conservative. i will not even vote unless i find a conservative to vote for. in thisservatives country will never tolerate what obama is trying to do. he is going to have to learn to do with us somehow. so are the democrats. thank you. host: alan in scottsdale, arizona, a republican. caller: good morning.

here is the situation -- it is not about the vote. in a about having a vote certain timeframe. i think there should be a time if a so if your pup -- president comes into a new office, there should be a time -- there should be an up- and-down vote on anybody president wants to bring forward. democrats who have talked on your program this listen, i sit back and i to that rhetoric, and i see $5 trillion gone in the economy. obama has spent it. doled out to everybody and his friends and everything else across this nation. you ask, where is the middle class? it is gone. we have lost. we have lost everything. the report from that newspaper article that obama is now going

back off of the george zimmerman case -- he is the one who brought it forward by saying that trayvon martin looked like a son, his son would have been trayvon. himself, the prosecution never released the information on his cell phone to the defense. think about that. they obstructed justice. host: i am going to leave it there. we will continue our conversation about whether or not there should be changes to the filibuster rule when it comes to executive nominations. nightl was reached last when the senators gathered in the old senate chamber for three and a half hours to discuss the issue. begins on c-span 2 around 10:00 a.m. eastern time, the first vote expected around 11:00 a.m., and then we will take your calls and tweets

around 12:30 p.m. eastern time and get your reaction to what you heard so far on this debate on whether or not to change the filibuster rules. this conversation will continue. coming up, we will talk to congressional pork -- historian norman ornstein to talk about the history of the so-called nuclear option and a proposal to fix it. later, two senators will join us from capitol hill, vermont independent bernie sanders, and then we will talk to wyoming republican john barrasso about the so-called nuclear option. first, we want to show you harry reid at an event at the center for american progress yesterday. he talked about the constitution and how he'd use it when it comes to nomination -- he views it when it comes to nominations. [video clip] >> the constitution is very specific. as to what requires a super majority. vetoes, impeachments, treaties,

and in the same paragraph where the founding fathers talked about super majorities, they mention the presidential nominations. the founding fathers wanted an up or down vote. that is what we have been crying for four years. -- for for years. i believe this whether it is one to the new bushes president, or maybe a new clinton,maybe hillary or maybe even the daughter -- whoever is president, they should have the ability to pick their team. i feel very strongly about that. we are back with norm ornstein, congressional historian, resident scholar at the american enterprise institute. let's get your reaction to last meeting could all but two of the 100 senators came to

the closed-door meeting and talked for three and a half hours. no deal. was interesting. harry reid said if necessary he would use the sergeant at arms to drag people into the meeting, which would have been interesting if it had happened. it is not surprising that they did not reach a deal. it is very tough to do with all 100 there. what really happened was a preliminary negotiation. there is still a very strong chance that they will reach an 11th hour deal until we go ahead and see this happen. hours.till several we will see ed markey, the new senator elect from massachusetts, sworn in at 10:00. that was preliminary enabling this to happen, for harry reid to be sure he had 51 votes. then we will see these nominations brought up. i think the negotiations will be going on right up until the last minute. this could happen, but i think there is a good chance it will

not. host: why should voters care? guest: voters should care because it is about governance. in this particular example, i have some sympathy with harry reid and obama. if a president cannot put his people in place, to run the government, it is going to have an impact on all voters. this is true for things that go from the consumer financial protection bureau, the key part of the dodd frank legislation that protects consumers against big banks and others, through to what has been a delay finally just resolve recently with the center for medicare and medicaid services. which was delayed for almost the of the obamars administration come all the way through to cabinet departments. it matters for voters even if they do not see it on the surface. it also matters of the senate goes into full meltdown mode,

and the low opinion people have of congress could get lower yet. host: what could happen? guest: what we see, and we have seen this dangled before with a majority frustrated over the minority saying, we will go nuclear, as it were, and then the minority, which in the senate, has a lot of different ways to block. see is even more shenanigans in the senate. journal,t reading the .pproving the journal the farcical part of congress that people often see and often see as they watch c-span, that leaves them frustrated, it could get worse. you cannot go much lower than 10% approval, but the intensity of that disapproval could increase as well. we have to keep something else in mind -- we have two more weeks left in the session.

nothing much will happen. when they come back in september, we've got october 1, the government's finances for most of the programs that voters do see will end unless we have appropriations bills approved or a continuing resolution. we are on a collision course. very possibly another shutdown of the government. probably around november 1, we will reach the debt limit and have yet another hostage taking episode there, the full faith and credit of the united states at risk. it could lead us into another economic downturn. these are things that are very tangible and would be tangible evidence of the government that is not working. host: from "the wall street journal" --

they protested when gop leaders moved to eliminate the 60 vote hurdle for nominations of federal judges who hold lifetime appointments. everywhere.risy is it is absolutely the case that when a parties in the majority, they get frustrated by the filibuster. when a parties in the minority, they use the filibuster. there are two important points to to make. one is judicial nominations are lifetime appointments. if there is a rationale for a super majority hurdle on a nomination battle, it is with judges. i can appreciate that. the second and more important point is that when we have that threat, and we had the shoes on the other feet, in the end, we got a deal. with that deal, democrats swallowed hard and actually voted for a whole series of judicial nominees who they found pretty obnoxious. that was the gang of 14. the question we have now is, why is there no gang of 14? is we have not seen

seven republicans step up to do what seven democrats did back in 2005. that is what i expect will happen, but it hasn't happened yet. host: are there democrats willing to step up? guest: yes, and at this point, harry reid has said that he is perfectly happy not to do this if they let these nominees go through. we've got seven nominees out there. i think pretty much they can the with five of them, but question that still emerges is over the national labor relations board, and we saw a little while ago john thune talking about that. the problem with that is that it was because no matter how qualified the nominees were in these -- and these democratic nominees are pretty qualified, republicans blocked them for a long time because they do not want national labor relations board. they wanted to kill it entirely. that is when president obama used the recess appointment authority, which now a d.c.

court of appeals has said is not appropriate. these two individuals were basically caught in the crosshairs. host: also from "the wall street journal" piece -- we just showed our viewers the comments from the center for american progress event where he talked about the constitution, and he said he thinks the founding fathers wanted the executive branch to have an up or down vote on its cabinet members. on the executive nominees. guest: certainly the history of the u.s. would suggest that we have had very, very few filibusters in the past on executive nominations. 20 or so allbly the way up until the obama administration. we have had more than 15 in this administration.

one of the problems here -- i alluded to it before -- it is what thomas mann and i in our book called the new nullification. it is not saying, we will filibuster this nominee because he or she is extreme, he or she has problems with moral tuber. tude,or she is not -- terpi he or she is not qualified. not want this agency or bureau to function at all. we do not want this law to be administered or expanded. that is a different process than we have ever seen before, and it is why it has led to this confrontation. host: the book by thomas mann is "it is even worse than it looks." a paperbackve version of the book which came out one year ago. now i am kicking myself for not changing the title to "it is even worse than it is then -- it was then."

thatve an afterword suggests that the 113th congress had some real opportunities. we have seen them in the senate on immigration and on a couple of other issues. but the prospects of lawmaking now with these confrontations over the budget once again, it is like a friday the 13th movie debts, part two on the limit, with the inability to move forward on issues like guns or even now the problems with immigration in the house of representatives -- the tribalism, the partisan divisions, the stark polarization that should have gotten better after the 2012 elections do not seem to be getting better. host: we will get our viewers involved in the conversation. linda is in ohio, republican caller. caller: i would just like to say we have so many government officials right now that do not remember they work for the

people of the u.s. it is not always what they want. this is a trouble. that is why we have this filibuster problem all the time. children.ike little it is what they want. it is not what the people want. they forget that. thank you very much. guest: you know, that is a very good point. one of the difficulties we have now is this is particularly a problem in the house. you have individuals representing districts that have become homogenous echo chambers. they do not reflect the broader national public opinion. the may not even reflect only real contest coming in reflect, with the only real contest coming in primaries, the electorates in those districts. viewpoints hasof gotten accentuated a lot in

recent years. it has always been the case that members represent their own narrow constituencies, but you have had in the past leaders who could transcend that. if we want an example of behaving like children and ignoring national problems, the farm bill is the best example. what has happened so many times in the past is you have these parochial interests and farm areas, and you have other interests, and they managed to merge them together for 60 years or more with food stamps on the one hand and the farm interests on the other, doing an urban- rural coalition to move things forward. in the house, they have split those off. we have gone for years through the worst drought since the great depression without a farm bill, without relief. off foodtening to cut stamps at a time when unemployment is still high and there are real problems for people out there struggling to get by. host: american hero on twitter asks this

the constitution says that the house and senate set their own rules. having meetings that are behind closed doors is perfectly all right if they can get past the criticism from american hero and other americans who do not like it. let's face it -- an awful lot does happen behind closed doors before it comes out in public. one of the great positive things that has happened over the last 30-40 years is there has been more transparency in congress. you do not see many secret meetings. with c-span, americans can see a whole lot more of how government acts than they ever did before, for better or worse. all but told you that two senators attended the meeting last night. the two senators that it not for personal reasons and scheduling conflicts, according to "the marco rubioost," and jeanne shaheen of new hampshire did not attend. go to derek in cedar

town, georgia, a democrat. caller: i respect your work. , we spokeatic process about this before. i know you are familiar with this. deficits do not matter. aspect number two is do not let getmocratic president another democrat. a taxbill clinton got increases, these were a trade. glass-steagall, all these things. it was bad for the country. they are trying to put president obama in the same place.

party handed him a budget with a ball of surplus back. will behe deficit down no good. the very next year at the budget surplus was given away by dick cheney. host: we will get a response. guest: one of the things i hoped would happen here that has not yet, after the president had some of these very nice dinners with senators and they were talking about a broader deal to deal with the debt that would have included more revenues and some significant changes in the social insurance we had very good and positive comments coming out from people like bob corker of tennessee who really wants to solve problems. nothing much has happened since.

the presidentthat make some steps publicly to show this was not just rhetoric. so far, nothing. in a broader sense, we have a very different set of worldviews here. for a lot of republicans, it is much more about cutting government programs. in that sense i think the caller is absolutely right. as importantrly for them as cutting government. point.t in parties acting like parliamentary parties in a system that does not tolerate that, when you have a parliamentary minority that vote no on everything it can work elliptically. it worked in 1994. 7.5 monthsuick and to get it. it can surely did more to

reducing deficits and a balanced budget. the same thing happen with his healthcare plan. democrats innst 1994 in gave them the majority. same thing in 2010. a little bit more from our twitter audience. keep the filibuster rules the same. i want to show you this piece in the wall street journal. -- he refers to the cooling of the senate that our founding fathers set to thomas jefferson as he was asked waning the idea for the chamber.

there to cool the hot legislation from the house of representatives. this is not always easy to watch. it will have unlimited debate. lot of respect recen for bob deb. he had written a marvelous book. what i found interesting this morning that it was all about legislation, not about combinations or nominations. you have to make some of these decisions. this is an interesting one. we did not have this in the sentence. the framers did not go from a

constitution set up where they said we were going to have unlimited debate. senates west few had a motion on the previous question. it is a way to stop debate immediately and move to a vote. he gave his farewell address to the senate and said you have a rulebook here. it is field with a lot of redundant measures. let's clean it up. they took out the motion. it took a couple of decades. they realize there's no real way to stop the debate. we still still have very few filibusters. one individual could go to the floor and speak forever. what happened in 1917 was what president wilson called a little band of willful men blocked five onm with serial filibusters

the even entry into world war i. that led to the first real which created a threshold. we just as in 1975. it has been adjusted a few times. we even had some adjustments then.y the majority since this is not there from the beginning. you have unlimited debate as a cherished opportunity. i think the rules for congress and the constitution did you some overhauling. republican caller. caller: i just wanted to say there is aeve that reason for the checks and balances.

i think republicans should you can seeause that they passed almost everything. as a formeri object lifelong democrats, this air against that i see from the executive branch. i watched the hearings. i see republicans answering actual questions and never getting actual answers. it is the democrats that politicize it. i want somebody to hold people accountable and to be the grown- ups. i believe in checks and balances. one of the things that i

implemented for many years was the decline of real oversight. we have seen a whole series of these on the irs and some of these other problem scandals and the like. not much about how you are administering the laws and being careful with taxpayer money. this has been a problem in congress for democrats and republicans. the issue is whether you are going to an able and executive theave the example and right and responsibility to actually run the government. a minority party acting in unison, one of the things to remember is that most of the filibusters that happens were not party matters. filibusters did not have all the democrat join

together against all the republicans. this is a recent phenomenon and the ability to block anything from happening. it is a very different way to use the filibuster than we have seen. you indicated the minority have a lot of different ways and right they can use. minority used to use and what can they use other than the filibuster? guest: let me make a larger point. the senate is a delicate organism in many ways. it operates by unanimous consent. unlike the house which has traffic cops, rules, you have to do it this way. they can move forward. in the senate, any individual if he or she wants to be the scum can block things and create

havoc. the ideas that you would try to build some consensus. one of the points he does make you almosteal roa world force bipartisan operation. roman streett as a minority it will work. you could deny unanimous consent. you get hold of the nomination by sink you would deny unanimous consent. they would have to jump there a whole lot of hoops to make it happen, which they were unwilling to do. you can stretch matters out. committees for meetings when the senate is in session. there are ways of getting the attention of the executives or the majority. one of the reasons we have not

seen this nuclear option is it is more of a narrow pinpoint strike. the majority can make matters a whole lot worse. i look at what is happening with the legislative process. that much is going on. they can getow much worse. that is why he has made this for a credible threat of moving forward. there is a big difference between cooling legislation unblocking the operation of enacted laws. utah, independent caller. guest: good morning. here is the thing. the problem with that is we have corruption. them to beintended this. they have too many allegiances to special interest groups.

simple there is a very solution. it is probably unconstitutional. we passed an amendment that did not allow anybody with a law background to be a legislator. what we do -- what we should do allow farmers to do it. no bill would ever be longer than two pages. everyone will be able to read and understand it. interpretbe able to it one direction. they were not have anything to argue about. be an that would interesting amendment all right, no lawyers in the process. there's no no question you can get a lot of language in this process. that is not going to happen. laws thatreason why complicated. they have all kinds of implications.

it would find all kinds of ways to use the ambiguities for simplicity's there to take advantage of them. we would end up with these things, having them result by judges in court. i would become triple with that. the race to control the senate is pretty close right now. they're in the minority right now. in 2014 things could switch. out a handful of races to watch. they'll be marked in alaska senator pryor and senator hagan and others. guest: there are a number of decided not toan schweitzer run for the open seats because

of the retirement coming for max baucus. likely to stay in the hands of the democrats. it is much more likely to go republican. two only 10 by republicans. almost all the republican seats is prettyxception much say for the republicans. winning theshot at majority. it is important to remember that these numbers are shaped by what happened six years earlier. you have a good year. that is why they are up. the next election after this come after elections for the republicans in the senate. the shoe will be on the other

foot. if they take a majority there's no doubt it will make a difference for president obama's final years. it and -- it will expand. host: what role is president obama not being reelected playing on this issue? guest: there's very little doubt that mcconnell's reelection campaign has made a difference in his rhetoric and approach. republican he was up this time is worried about being primaried. we see a very different behavior by john cornyn in texas. they are much more concerned and the challenge from the right if they are not tough enough on president obama. disobey then if they were up for reelection.

they have tangible examples of people who have been shot down along the way. it is making a difference. of the leaders are up. consider the able to move past wee of the driving forces, are willing to accommodate them. democrat, florida. good morning, joseph. the only political or qualified political organization that i give any his common cause. to using thisated country a better place. one other issues happen to be this filibuster.

they are actually suing the senate over the senate. i believe the grounds would be something like the following. the concept of the philip custer -- filibuster does not appear in the constitution. it is in the senate via their right to write rules. it grounds i would guess, would be contrary to the constitution. there are basically only five aasons that require supermajority to get past. i would like to know if he is familiar with this lawsuit and the common cause and what the opinions would be. ,uest: i am very familiar with

and cause. panel on the filibuster in which i appreciated. i have read the briefs. you are right. the basic ground as the constitution is very pleasant that does not fit one of those areas. i'm skeptical there will be any success with this lawsuit. are not goingurts to get into something that involves the roles of the senate, particularly because you have a very specific element separate the can roles. they highlighted this. , they have a substantial number of democratic senators.

thes interesting to see split that you do not see very publicly between more senior democrats. some of the senior democrats were around when they were in the minority and majority. the worm will turn. we will be back in that position. we should be careful about what we do. the other members who are very smart and are not brushing with the motion say that may well happen but this is just no way to run a country. we have a bit of a tug-of-war over the filibuster. it is pretty clear that the only has a consensus big enough to be confident he has the votes is over executive nominations.

host: the senate begins at 10:00 a.m. by swearing and the next senator from massachusetts. the first vote is happening around 11:00 a.m. eastern. they will continue after that if they cannot get closer. tune into c-span tw2. of your tweetsl turning to you outside of washington to get your take about whether or not the filibuster rules should be changed. can youts to know filibuster the filibuster rule change? thet: the catch-22 is rules require a 2/3

vote. that is why they have not been able to change the rules at all. in the house of representatives, you have a new congress every two years. they convene on january 3. they create rules. they do it by majority as almost anybody. if you get together, eugene do it by you do -- you roles. two/three continue has been interpreted as a body. when they made the change, they

kept the threshold for rules changes. i think they would not formally change the rules which he could not do in the republican filibuster but find some other way. he has been very close now -- closed mouthed about the specifics. there are multiple ways in which you could work your way around that to do a simple resolution with the majority to change the operation. it would not be by changing the rules. it would be a backdoor thing which is also controversial. joe biden role might play in this today? .uest: he will be in the chair in the event harry reid can only muster 50 votes in which case you get have a tight, vice

president biden would be there to cast the tie-breaking vote but maybe in a position where you want a ruling from the chair. biden would provide that ruling. guest: in what way? was: when bill frist considering doing a so-called nuclear option on judicial going to beit was having then vice president cheney in the chair and it wasing that unconstitutional having him rule in that regard. thatould have an appeal the majority upholds or projects that appeal. ,uest: canon lake, texas independent collar. welcome to the conversation. caller: some of the points are hilarious. haveity should be able to

a filibuster any time they need to a bunchhemselves of fascists. this is totally un-american. i have no respect for this idiot called obama. the incompetence of the people is astounding. thatare trying to tell us all the violations of our civil rights does not mean anything. we should not say anything about it because obama is black. it does not matter. he is equal but not better than the rest of us. look at obamacare. the democrat said it was the greatest things for americans. now they cannot implement it. it is a bunch of incompetents. >> what did you think?

he is the duly elected president of the united states. he won by a very comfortable margin. a clearection was with majority of american votes. whether you like you margin not like him, he is our president and he has the constitutional requirement it to administer faithfully the law and he needs his people to do so. my guess is that the caller had a president he really like and to minority were acting block everything the president wanted to do and all of his and her appointments we would get a call screaming about the filibuster. the new york times has this headlines. obama is said as using hidden hands. --

host: peter baker is a terrific reporter. there is a political scientist that wrote a wonderful book called the hidden hand transforms theh historical viewpoint of dwight eisenhower from a fairly ineffectual president to one he was very effective behind the scenes. good point,ry particularly in this sense. dynamicour political is such that you have republicans that will reflexively vote against something if barack obama is for

it. look at pat toomey from pennsylvania. bill he had cosponsored on background checks went down on an filibuster, but a majority of votes but not the 60, he spoke to a group of reporters and says many of my colleagues would not vote for anything barack obama was for. we know that when obama wanted to come out for the immigration bill, his ally said do not do that. it becomes the barack obama immigration bill and then we will not get the 60 votes we need. he has had to adjust his style to step back from much of this legislation. a go forward without his direct involvement is a lot of the involvement behind the scenes. it has also hurt him and a number of ways. i think the failure to use the pulpit to frame what was in the

affordable care act were now and to go out and be more aggressive and talking about what is and it has enabled his adversaries to seize the agenda and frame it in a way that works to their advantage. i think we will see some adjustments. host: it's amazing anyone of qualities able to go through the nomination process at all. >> that has become a problem for the nominations of judges and executive appointees. this is not due to the obama administration. there are lindsay at difficulties for people in the bush administration. of becoming an appointee to an executive position has gotten harder and harder. i am not involved [inaudible] [no audio] with[no audio] a new effort with paul volcker [no audio] [no audio] caller: www.c-span.org. i work with him on the broker

commission. he is putting a lot of his own money and prestige into the volcker alliance to make sure we could administer effectively. it has become harder. when you have to not only go through this lengthy process when you are twisting in the wind for a long time and you do not even know if you'll get confirmed, it is reckless we are able to get enough good people who will step forward. -- miraculous that we are able to get enough good people to step forward. "the washington times" --

guest: if you look at the word hypocrisy you will find a lot of big news there. it is true. if you look at the number of nominations that were held up in theyush administration, are dramatically less than what we see now. this is a game that has been played before but at a fairly low level. i think what democrats did during the last administration would be the equivalent of going 10 or 15 miles over the speed limit. what we have seen is the equivalent of the healer homicides. host: the piece notes that have rule been in effect is likely he would have been confirmed by the the senate

in 2006. georgia, republican collaaller. geneticallys not less than they were before. it comes comes to an unprecedented level of behavior, harry reid was loading up the tree with amendments and blocking minority participation. aty at our -- are unprecedented level. you say republicans are more interested in cutting programs than they are deficits. here is a little fact of history. they inherited a recession in 2000. for six years and 911 in the middle of two wars. $2.5 trillion worth of debt. in the last 4.5 years, we went from over $10 trillion to almost

$17 trillion worth of debt. we are heading toward economic destruction. you are talking about gun legislation. all these ancillary matters. people are interested in the truth about where we are heading. ornstein. guest: i do think there is a jewel problem on a lot of filibusters. there are a number of issues in which the majority leader has cut off their ability to offer amendments by filling the majority tree which the leader can do. they are embarrassing amendments that would perhaps

be difficult for democrats who are up for reelection. what we have seen is filibusters on everything. nominations do not have amendment trees. there's no excuse of that sort. when you see filibusters that passed 98 to 2, the only reason to doing that is to use up a lot of the senate precious time. that is the difference in the past. when it comes to numbers, i would say we have projected $5.6 trillion and surpluses at the end of the clinton administration. there were two that were unpaid for. the drug benefit for medicare was unpaid for.

we moved radically into deep debt territory. been much more about cutting taxes than it is about reducing deficits. harry reid andr, democrats are guilty of plenty of obstructionism. it doesn't the house -- dozens of the house bills are ignored, no debate. caller: i called in especially to say i think i'm just hearing these republicans here with their comment this morning right behind mitch mcconnell who we know they said in the very beginning that he would do anything to get rid of president obama. is our dulyama elected president. the american people came out and voted for him. we support him. officed harry reid's

yesterday. he took my call and heard my comments. i also called president -- mitch yesterday. call they were too busy to take my call. there's no staff available. give me a break. mitch mcconnell has wanted to do president obama and. i have to say as a white lady who works with the federal government for 38 years, this is because his black hands. mitch mcconnell, aegon see it in his face, he brings hate -- you can see it in his face. he brings hate into congress. host: it sounds like you are accusing mitch mcconnell of racism. caller: i am. host: what evidence do you have? caller: i have been listening to him the first day president obama was elected.

i just recently read up on the history of mitch mcconnell since he first got involved in politics. andody can go out there google "mitch mcconnell" and look at the whole history and how he twists the truth. the man is a weasel. host: the relationship between republicans led by mitch and president obama -- one.: is not a good if hillary clinton were president, i do not think mitch mcconnell would be hating any differently. -- behaving any differently. we see a lot of different approaches. took toward they

bill clinton. a charm. in 1994 like he is running for reelection. he wanted a second term for the house republicans and show that they were making things happen. this time he took a big river boat gamble. it did not work. are not goodhips between the president and republican leaders. this is one of the reasons that he is staying out of this process. poisonouspretty atmosphere in the country. on a lot of the debate and dialogue. it is one of the things we have seen in washington that the starting to staff the size --

metastasize. point.ke one other if you look at some of the things said about bill clinton when he was president, they are not radically different than those who say vicious things about barack obama. let's face it. race is never far from the surface and this country as he seen out in the aftermath of the trayvon martin/george zimmerman example. the first african- american president. you cannot ignore that reality. i do not think the difference was based on race. you have the clinton being an accessory to murder. that is a factor. about the relationship between harry reid and mitch mcconnell? guest: we have had checkered relationships in the past. probably more often than not,

the majority and minority leaders go on very well even as they clashed publicly. they have a larger interest to make it work. in many cases they have an interest because each have their own headaches. dealwe saw the filibuster that was worked out in january, there was a bigger change in the roles between harry reid and mitch mcconnell. they made it easier to move forward if there were a filibuster by a ted cruz that mcconnell wanted to overcome or by somebody on the left. they have gotten along very well in the past. you can see if you watch any of they have or the interactions in the last few ship there isation

very afraid. when trent lott was the republican leader, there were two individuals that had a very would trusting relationship. the relationships between majority leaders and minority leader since then have not worked out very well. it is a reflection of the larger tensions and polarization of our politics. host: republicans then were able to unseat about daschle -- bob daschle. guest: we saw a very long change. bill frist q succeeded trent lott actually went into south dakota to campaign against his counterpart. now you have mcconnell furious because he believes that he reread is interfering with his election. rune is a super pac being by people who used to work for reaid in kentucky. host: republicans add large

numbers of amendments to bill as another or my filibuster. james, you are up next, massachusetts, republican. wasn't i wanted to ask it the unions have put pressure on the president to elected these three people to the labor board? guest: there's no no question the unions have a very real the nationalng labor relations board that is functioning. one of the nominees was a chief counsel for senator kennedy on the labor committee. another was involved in labor actions before. important to remember that under the law the national labor relations for, if they do not have this in place in august, will cease to function. what it means is that for millions of americans who have any kind of problem or dispute

with their companies, let's say you get fired or demoted because you asked for a raise or you inquired about safety problems, the national labor relations board handles those disputes. if you have that you have no way to deal with that. there is a real reason that goes be on unions themselves. we are talking about others. as muchunderlying this as anything else. the collar is right. this is a very high priority. time thank you for your this morning. we appreciate it very much. thus keep this conversation going. we will be taking your phone calls and tweets. we will have bernie sanders and republican john barrasso. then we will switch gears and

josh meyer will update us on wikipedia. >> russia's state news agency says edward snowden is asking for temporary asylum in russia. he has admitted to disclosing programs and says he would seek russian asylum temporarily before going to venezuela or nicaragua which have offered him asylum. he is believed to be in the international airport since arriving there june 23. a leading economic body says unemployment across the world may fall next year despite further rises and a number of european countries. the jobless rates for the country that used the euro will rise from 12.2% to 12.3% by the end of next year.

the federal communications commission is soliciting comments on how to handle and frequent swearing and assistance of nudity. isvate citizens argue there already too much of that on television. and they say there's plenty of room for more adult entertainment on cable, internet, and satellite radio. the networks content the times have changed and their right to free speech is violated when they are penalized for broadcasting material available at other forms of entertainment. if you like to weigh in on the issue go to ftc.gov. those are some of the latest headlines. he had been taken in a plane crash in 1948. --e is little league literally seeing her children and birth order disappear from the scene. about0 four she wrote

what it is like that summer. she said gone are the presidential helicopters that we would so look forward to every weekend. i would see his children run out to him. gone are those days. >> she missed that. >> she wistfully says gone are the days when we were said to be the most powerful family in the world. releasesa perry diaries and letters as she talks about the kennedy matriarch. saturday 10:00 p.m. eastern. host: joining as a senator bernie sanders to talk about this idea of changing the filibuster rules when it comes to executive nominations. no deal wasned

reached. as of this morning, have you heard anything from your leadership? guest: we will see what will happen. you havef executive to have people. when you have a president you have to have the right to appoint people. this is what our constitution is about. i find it very disturbing that in an unprecedented way republicans are making it impossible for the president to have his team by filibustering these appointments. today onre focusing presidential appointments, the issue really is is deeper than that. it is the dysfunctionality of

the united states senate. from 1917-1967, they blocked of the views less than 60 times. since harry reid has been the majority, he is try to overcome filibusters more than 400 times. is gentleman's agreement .hat we will have votes it requires 60 votes to pass anything at a time. our country has so many serious problems. we have a real unemployment. kids cannot afford to go to college. sayingrican people are do something. have a debate. addressed these issues. we cannot get 60 votes to overcome the filibuster and the senate is largely dysfunctional. wrinkly, i would go further. host: how?

in a talkingeve filibuster. we have very strong in protecting minority rights. what does this mean? when legislation comes up, we should be allowed to go and talk for as long as we want. i was in opposition to legislation for it .5 hours. 8.5 hours. people can do that. at the end of that time, let's finally have a boat with -- a vote. most folks want to see as raise the minimum wage. i doubt that we would even be able to bring that bill to the floor for a vote because of

republican obstructionism. the minority has the right to talk as much as they want. at ae end of the day, time when we have so many serious crises, majority rules. host: what are the odds that the nuclear option is put into place? the rules are changed for executive nominations? guest: if we are patient we will probably find out what happens in a few hours. host: our coverage starts around 10:00 a.m. eastern time. as of 11:00 that is when harry reid said of these tests votes. me ask you about what the policy committee has put out on the never when it comes to the nomination. of the nominations as an obama has sent, only four have been

to. the public and have worked with democrats over hundred times over the past 4.5 years. that is funny. in the federal government and administration, you have hundreds and hundreds of undersecretaries of this and that. have beenhey appointed. on certain key issues, for example right now some of us are concerned about the planetary crisis of global warning. we need an epa administrator on the environmental committee. what i can tell you is the submittedmber has 1100 questions for the nominees. see gina mccarthy as a reasonable person. we do not have an epa administration. the issue of the national the very board

important agency. it is so secret that many republicans do not believe that workers should be able to exercise their rights whether to form a union, to have a legal recourse, so what is the answer? the answers to not appoint any members. we have the consumer financial board. what they're simply doing is .enying this the secretary of labor, the same thing. they are all kinds of minor positions which are usually appointed in a perfunctory way. there is no question that in terms of major appointments, having a couple of filibusters for the secretary of defense, the publicans have become quite structured this.

>> they still say that the work it does is what they are upset about. they point to the bowling case and say they a qs the labor relations board of discrimination against states in the south -- they disagree with a decision. that is their right. you do not prevent people from getting appointed because you disagree with the decision. that is the point. they disagreed that the epa might be aggressive in dealing with maybe the most serious problem our planet places -- faces, global warning. how should we go forward in terms of energy efficiencies? , prevent feet

movements were global warming by administrator. that is appropriate way to address that problem. host: republican collar, you are on the air. caller: i am going to try to keep it short. i could go on for a while but i will try to keep it short. the reason republicans are doing what they're doing is very simple. party is owned by the progressive movement. that philosophy is 180 degrees at odds with the founders. policies that are are fundamentally at odds. howre in a situation where can i put this, it's republicans

do not do do this, they're not being faithful to the people that synth into congress. they were sent there for the purpose of obstructing these policies and this political philosophy. every member of the senate was elected. every member has the right to stand up to fight for his or her point of view. you do not have the right in my view of of using the rules of the senate and making it dysfunctional. i have to disagree with you. i am a progressive. i believe we should defend social security and not cut it. the vast majority of the american people support me. when the gap between the rich and everybody else is growing wider, we should ask large corporations to start paying their fair share of taxes. the majority of american people agree with me, not the republicans. i believe when real unemployment

is close to 14% we should be putting millions of people back to work. the vast majority of people agree with me. iso not believe that that the dominant philosophy. be that as it may, what we should be doing is have real debates. let's have a majority of votes. if the american people do not like the results, that is what elections are about. the american people did elect barack obama. he has the right to appoint his people to run the government. caller: democratic collar. .- host: democratic caller caller: republicans are being hypocrites. they do not have a problem with the government giving them tax breaks. they want to privatize everything.

they give the government money to contracts. but with poor people, they do not want to do anything or them. why do poor and middle-class people vote for republicans? i do not understand why. an excellent question and subject for a long debates. we do not have time for it right now. in my view, despite what the , let'ss collaaller has said be very clear. one of the issues i want to vote on his campaign finance reform is campaign finance reform. they should elect candidates of their choice and not even have to disclose who they are. they can do it in secret. that was one of the pieces of legislation that got strong majority votes. we cannot win it because we

needed 60 votes. the bottom line is that people can have all differences of pigeon -- of opinion. let the american people decide which side they think makes sense. what frustrates me and the american people right now is because of all of these filibusters we do not even have the debates. the american people to not have a chance to see the contrast between the two sides. host: what about the hypocrisy argument, republicans pointing to mr. reid holding up the nomination by president bush to go to the ftc. -- guest: you can argue quite honestly that both sides have used obstructionism in the last many years. that is clear. i am an independent, not democrat.

want to say democrats have played in extraction this role, you are right. they have. role, youtructionist are right. they have. the publicans have taken that -- republicans have taken it in a very giant step in the wrong direction. been majorityas leader. democrats have been in power. he has had to bring forth over 400 closure votes. this is far more the case that ever before. as well. are guilty republicans have taken this to a whole new level, making the senate dysfunctional. host: independent mind. guest: i have been listening about abstractions and. he was speaking about having a debate of philosophy's.

i am thinking about what happens when this takes over to to let him decide like denying to live up to the bill to audit the fed. i know that you have been a major supporter of the fed. , how can harry reid no longer wish to talk about this issue? it was my that amendment that was part of. frank that he did do a revelatory audit of the fed.

we learned a great deal from that. i believe the fed should be audited. the point is getting the issue. you can criticize harry reid or anyone else you want. i want to see in the senate wants to bring forth and legislation or an amendment to legislation to bring forth fed reform, let us have the debate on fed reform. let's not prevent that from taking place by obstructionism. the american people want to see the minimum wage raised. i doubt we will ever have that voted on as an issue treated the wealthiest people in this country are asked to pay their fair share of taxes. in lower the deficit and, fragrant -- frankie we will not have a vote on that issue. we spent a huge amount of time on filibusters and when the only

have 55 votes, that is virtually impossible. host: democratic caller on the air. caller: senator sanders is my hero in washington. i am calling about all the demonizing that is called in with the labor unions. the labor unions only control temper sent of the workers in this country. and 10% of the workers in this country cannot do all the bad things that these republicans are trying to put on us. just -- we help everybody. we help people that are not in unions. all labor is benefit a by unions. host: senator, i assume you agree with that. when you look at many of

the great social achievements and america, we owe it to the working men and women of the trade union. -- whate "what internal," once again the past to compress. they conducted a year-long investigation of year-long -- officials involved in a deal. documents and testimonies from other witnesses are at odds with the accounts given to the committee including who came up with the idea quid pro quo who supported it and whether it was .ot properly vetted mr. perez has not explained these inconsistencies. referring to a quick pro-quote involving st. paul and the up. ce department heading give a veryerez did thoughtful expedition of his

role -- his explanation of his role in that issue. journal," iseet opposed to labor. and should not be anybody this is just another example of republican obstructionism preventing the president from having the secretary of labor to run a very important -- host: the president has the power to the nominations and the senate has the right to consent. guest: let me paraphrase harry reid, he said the nuclear option would destroy the senate and destroy the nation. it was the most dangerous thing and that he never would do it if he was in control. i do not have much respect for harry reid. he can't pass a budget or a lot of things.

but he is beholden to the labor unions. if you want ask why republicans do not want the eta or the nlrb changed it is because what they are doing is changing the nation. you change the nlrb, you change all workers in america. first welcome of the caller says the senate can't past a budget. we did pass a budget, but when you talk about objectivism what is going on right now is republicans are refusing the budget. in terms of the issue of the nlrb, we have had it for a very long time since the 1930' us. in my view, workers have the right to legal recourse if they are treated unfairly in the work place. apparently the caller does not agree with that. many republicans to agree with it, but i think it is the right

thing. host: senator sanders, thank you for your time this morning. up next we'll talk about senator brass go and get his take on last night's meeting in the path forward here as the senate is expected this morning on c-span two. to changeup the issue the roles when it comes to executive nominations and a versions of the so-called nuclear options. the senate comes in at 10:00 a.m. and italy swearing in a new senator from massachusetts and then they will turn to these nominees. richard cordray is expected to take place around 11 a.m. eastern time and they will continue to go through the list and we will see if a deal is struck before them to come sort of some sort of copper rise. -- compromise. then the two sides will break for their weekly senate

luncheons around 12:30 p.m. eastern time. that is when we want to hear from all of you. we'll take calls, please, e- mails and facebook comments. let me keep taking your phone calls until we get senator brass go. richard, independent color what are your thoughts. caller: good morning, i don't think they use the filibuster enough. who is president obama going against the rule of the people. anything find out about fast and furious or what if he iss doing targeting conservative groups or benghazi, but we know all about the zimmerman trial where he injected the attorney general to come down here which is a state issue. and harassed the local people

involved. your point.k we got i will leave it there because the senator is joining us. and i want to get our viewers able to talk to him. brasso isin senator there news on economize? -- on a compromise? guest: the majority of members and bipartisan way would like showdown this nuclear and i visited with a number of democratic senators this morning who told me that there is some in the leadership. we had a very inductive -- productive discussion. in the old senate timbers last night -- chambers last night were the great history of this

country comes from and it has an effect on the discussion. in ant for 3.5 hours bipartisan way we left together after the meeting in a bipartisan way. people are still looking for a solution this morning. host: if harry reid goes through the nuclear option and has the votes to change the rules, how will the republicans respond? will you retaliate and if so how? guest: but i want to say to that is when the shoe is on the other foot and it looked like the republicans were going to use this nuclear option when president bush was in office, harry reid was the one who said i know a lot of ways to screw up the senate. what we have to do is what is right for the country. i was not a member of the senate then, but i thought it was shortsighted for senator reid to make all of these threats about

shutting down the senate. i think we have is a what is the interest of the market people and what is in the best interest of the american people is the role of the senate should play in advice and consent when it comes to the president's nominees. and president obama has been very successful with his nominees to the point -- you are showing the policy paper that 1564 nominees0 -- brought forth by the president. confirmed. only 4 were not in the first term and so far in the second term of president obama. what we also know is when it comes to cabinet level appointees, president obama's appointees are being confirmed at a faster rate than the point is where by bill clinton or by george dubya bush. -- george w. bush.

he's been better than previous presidents, but yet we have these manufactured crisis today and what looks to be a showdown coming, but i am trying to find a solution to avert it. host: the democrats are 60 filibusters in the impetus for to rules change as opposed 20 collectors prior to the obama admin assertion. guest: and every cabinet member has gotten confirmed on the judges. the president has a much better in his second term then george w. bush. a filibuster is a phrase they use, but a lot of times it is just to get answers to questions. senator sanders was on here talking about the epa nominee, and this was at a time when he says we have to be talking about global warming. to me, this looks like more

american jobs when the resident declares a war on coal -- when the resident declares a war on coal. we all know it is important to make energy as clean we can as fast as we can, but we have to do it in ways that do not affect and hurt the quality of life of american families. in terms of higher cost of energy and loss of jobs. so the nominee the president brought forward was the field general in the first obama administration at the epa. and then they get -- she gets nominated to lead the whole agencies, there are clearly questions to be asked and answers before we are willing to vote for and against are 30. host: independent color. caller: here's my question, senator. i want some clarity on some things.

i've been been watching the senate hearings for the last few days and what i am understanding from the public inside is this. -- from the republican side is is that the syllabus the problem -- this would be the fact that the president obama who is been very active in abusing his executive privilege onputting these appointees the relationship board. and they were doing that when you guys were on recess. guest: with the nlrb, the two nominees in question were appointed in recess appointments. both sides of the aisles have used recess appointed over the

years. when present bush was in his second term, harry reid came up with a strategy to say the senate would go into these sessions every two days so president bush cannot make a recess appointment. and a c-spanme in would cover these 62nd sessions and then president bush did not make recess sessions at the end of his first term. so not process continues with obama, he says i don't care. i will make recess appointments and he did that before they even had a hearing in the senate. the senators do not have an opportunity to ask questions. d.c. district court has ruled these appointees as being illegal. and now the supreme court is going to take it up. this is a major issue.

as is exactly what my friend from indiana is asking. this goes way beyond filibuster issues. this is about the president making appointments that the courts are now ruling illegal. host: republican from new orleans. caller: good morning. i am a republican. i do not vote for president obama. and i do not support most of the policies of the democrats. however, i have to say as a republican, i asked we support senator reed's efforts. because having a congress that is frozen and unable to move forward on anything is not healthy for the country. guest: the point where i agree with you is that we need to have people in these positions and it is disturbing to see secretary

napolitano has now resigned to take in education job in california. the stories are just about her, they are about the department of homeland security that is response will for keeping us the major of leadership there are 15 vacancies. these are names that have not even brought forth that the president has not nominated. the president hasn't put a name yet for inspector general of the department of homeland security. you take a look at all of these vacancies, the same thing at the state department. senator kerry got confirmed and i voted for him as secretary of state. and yet at the major leadership levels of the department of state there are 11 vacancies and

names have not even been brought .orth i this administers and i think the president and white house have to do their job because we need to function as a nation and it is not what is happening on the senate floor that is preventing it. it is an administration that is slow to put names forward. host: the new york times editorial board weighs in on this debate this morning. they argue that this is a resident worth setting. plymouth, michigan independent color. -- caller. caller: i'm glad to be on c- span, thank you so much for this cable network. i want to say that i am not surprised that the democrat party is coming against this filibuster. they have long been a party that has obstructed the rights of minorities. back in the 19 sick' s when dwight -- 1960s when dwight

eisenhower was resident he tried to get a civil rights bill and the democrats in the senate filibustered it. that would've helped the minorities in that area. i am hoping that the republicans can stand strong in this and that you and the -- other republicans in the senate can work together with democrats to keep the filibuster. we need it, it makes me proud that one person can stand up for all the rights of minorities. host: i will leave it there. freelancer on twitter says this about the debate. if the job to advise on the nominees not the job -- the office of the mummies to hold, gop is wrong here. guest: the holes history of the senate is to protect the rights of the minorities, of a minority

opinion and have those rights heard. that is why the senate was set up the way it was. the founding fathers talked being a saucere to cool the coffee that was established to make sure the rights of the minority were heard because we as a nation the way from england and the king and the concern was the king ruled everything and we wanted to make sure that other burst -- voices would be heard. so the founding fathers set up a system of the house. which is designed for majority rule alone and the senate which was set up with the purpose of protecting the rights of the minority. washington,eattle democratic caller. caller: i think we should fire all of congress and start over again. host: why do you say that?

caller: because it is a do- nothing congress. back to wyoming every weekend and listen to the folks who vote in my home state. i was there yesterday and a lot of small communities. i think as long as you have members who are here in washington are presenting their votes -- representing their votes, i think that is what we should continue to have. and elected group of representatives to represent their people and go home and listen to them frequently. slip that says the senate immigration bill has a $459 billion tax increase. the constitution origination cause saying that all bills that shall originate in the house of representatives, the washington

times is saying house republicans should blue slip senate legislation and send it back, do you agree with that? guest: the immigration bill passed the senate and i voted against it. i've concerns about this, but we need immigration reform in this country. there are important works to be done. we are a nation of immigrants and i want the house to come up with their own approach and solutions. and then put forth immigration reform that continues to focus on legal immigration for this country. host: andy from connecticut, independent color -- caller. caller: this whole filibuster thing is a scam because it is not in the constitution. i is not make any sense and think the egyptians have more democracy than we do because this whole filibuster thing is not in the constitution. why the vice president he tiebreaking vote, this is just a

scam between republicans and democrats. guest: i think when major legislation is that it should be done in a bipartisan way. wendy health care law was passed with no republican voting for it, here we are 3.5 years later with an unraveling of the health-care law because one side said we know what is best and it continues to be very unpopular by 2-1. americans think you'll make healthcare worse rather than better. you have many people wanting to have it repealed, then think it will actually help them. people believe the cost of care will go up, their taxes are going up, there debt goes up. and this is what happens when you have legislation which is not -- it does not have bipartisan and have many people

working together to come up with a solution. that is why you need the rights of the minority to express himself to be incorporated into the outcome to avoid the kind of problems that we're facing right now with this very unpopular health-care law that we are continuing to live with. and other president has even say let us delay for a year. politicians do not delay legislation that people like or want or are eager to have. all editions want to delay a decision that people hate -- politicians want to delay legislation that people hate. that speaks to the need to have the opportunity of the majority and minority and mandated that they work together. that is why the founding fathers wanted us to have a right to slow down the discussion. host: senator, i know you have to run, we want to thank you for your time. guest: thank you.

host: as he said, the senate will get underway this morning 10:00 eastern time when they swear in. edward markey am of the former house can now fill the new senate seat and after that they can begin test votes on the president's nominees. they will begin with richard cordray around 11:00 a.m.. he is nominated by the president to lead the consumer financial protection bureau and then they will go on with the list of nominees that have been held up and we will see what happens between now and then when the debate gets underway and whether or not they can come up with some sort of compromise to avoid a so call nuclear option that is changing the filibuster rule on executive nominations. sides willm. the two break for their weekly luncheons and that is what we want to hear from all -- all of you. 12:30 p.m. eastern time on c- span two, colin in and let us

know what you think about the debate so far and this issue overall on changing the filibuster rules. coming up in our next hour, we will switch gears and talk about a different topic. josh meyer joins us to talk about wikileaks organization and its involvement with edward snowden the nsa leaker. .> is 924 eastern time nasa just reporting that it has supported a spacewalk at the international space station because of a dangerous water leak in an astronauts helmet. he reported that he felt a lot of water on the back of his head barely an hour into today's spacewalk. the leak was so bad that he needed help from fellow astronauts getting back into the space station. at first he thought it was sweat because of all his exertion performing routine cable work. he was repeatedly assured it was not wet.

-- sweat. a fellow astronaut said it might be water from his drink back. it looks like half of a leader leak out and eventually got into his eyes. that is when nasa ordered the two men back inside. the labor department says consumer prices rose in june pushed higher by a sharp increase in gas prices which rose over 6% largest since february. the overall trend in inflation stayed cain. just 1.8%rices risen of the last two months and that is a small change in two years. low inflation gives the federal reserve to keep inflation rates low to boost the economy. there's an investigation after police found material in a bedroom that could make a pressure cooker bomb similar to the ones used in the boston marathon attack treat a 27-year-

old was arrested on on scare charges last month. a russian-made assault rifle and other items that concerned officials were also found in his room. the matter is under investigation by the fbi joint terrorism task force. according to police, he told his mother that his best friend had bragged about tamerlan tsarnaev, one of the marathon bombing suspects. he was charged with three getting a bomb square -- scare and consult -- two counts of the mystic assault and battery. were killed and more than 260 injured when two bombs exploded near the finish line of the boston marathon. and there is an update on the .uspect in that case attorneys representing the accused bomber are asking the district court to add death penalty specialist david brock to their team part of an effort to spare the life of their 19- year-old client.

he's accused of killing two .eople and wounding 260 more he faces the possibility of execution if convicted. and this on the airline industry. aircraft collisions that are barely avoided have increased more than 600% the last four years. putting thousands of passengers lives at risk. also, in the airline industry news, china is opposing taiwan's efforts to join most international organizations. they split amid a civil war and a spokeswoman said today that china is urging washington to stop interfering in china's internal affairs. she said the u.s. bill has seriously violated the one china policy under which aging says self-governing taiwan is part of chinese territory.

allowing i want to observe the u.n. organization which promotes safe air travel. the organization meets every three years. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. and we are back with josh meyer a global security advisor for quartz. he's also the director of education and outreach for the national security journalism initiative. thank you for coming is going. we're switching gears and itsing about wikileaks and relationship to the nsa leaker edward snowden. what is wikileaks and how is it changed since he first made headlines? guest: it was started in 2006 under a sunshine coalition. their motto was we opened governments everywhere. it was created as a portal for

which people could leak classified information and essentially open it up to the sunshine laws of the world and get permission to the public. two,e past year or especially now that julian assange is on the run, i think that he's become much more of a messianic age are -- figure lobbying against government -- government and tyranny everywhere. assangeo beyond julian works for wikileaks? are they journalists? guest: no, there are a couple people that could be considered journalists. there are couple of human rights lawyers. there is one assistant in particular who has been one who accompanied edward snowden on his flight from hong kong to moscow was more of a researcher than anything else.

it is essentially a consortium of volunteers. always described himself as the leader, founder and terms of computer stuff. host: what are their ethics? guest: that is a good question. i think julian assange has always said they hold himself up to the highest ethics. in the early years, a lot of media outlets were supportive of wikileaks. i spent 20 years at the l.a. times and i certainly used a lot of their documents. they also said that they are very careful about not that wasg anything against the national security of the united states or other governments that could undermine sources and methods used by the intelligence community. i would think they consider themselves of the highest ethical standard. host: do they contend themselves journalists are whistleblowers? host: both.

i think he is taken the mantle of protector of those who cannot fight for themselves. in countriesle like kenya. they publish a lot of documents that show the government was taking a lot of profits out of the country and corruption and so forth. he's kind of a robin hood of the internet age. host: what impact we have given that he is in the ecuadoran embassy and he cannot leave? articlee just wrote an last week and a major publication talking about his mission. i think he is doing a lot in helping with the legal case of snowden. he is issuing a lot of statements and they let him work fairly freely their. the one thing he cannot do is leave. he's trying to figure out what is next up will be. host: we are talking with josh meyer of quartz an online

publication and he's the global correspondent. when a thinker questions about wikileaks and national security and the role they play with edward snowden. ,emocrat number (202) 737-0001 republican number (202) 737-0002 , an independent line (202) 628- 0205 three and we will also take your tweets if you go to http://twitter.com/cspanwj. so what is that connection between wikileaks, julian assange and edward snowden? guest: i think sarah harrison is the chief intermediary. but i think it is clear julian assange calls the shots. she is fairly young in her early 30's and she is the one the company 10 to moscow where he is believed to still be. likee beginning, it looked wikileaks was just helping with the legal strategy of helping him find asylum, but now they've

taken on much more of a role and they might even be protecting his documents in case he gets arrested. host: we have seen in the news today edward snowden asking russia for asylum. they have said we will give it to you if you stop political activity. has he said what is coming next for him and will he stop this? guest: no he is not. and he has more coming out. glenn greenwald said we are just touching the surface that there is a lot more out there that is coming out. president putin said he wants them to leave at the same time that snowden said he's asking for temporary asylum. , andis a fascinating case i am watching closely to see what happened next. host: we will go to our first

caller, democrat. caller: i just wanted to ask you about the situation where the deniedan president was flying privileges over several countries in europe under the ascension that snowden was on the plane. he allowed them to search it and found that he was not there. he is still obviously in moscow. snowden'shere is that releases about the united states and who we were spying on, didn't they include some of those european countries that denied the transport and would have sent snowden back to the unit sits? -- the united states? doesn't that seem strange and indicate that the cia is working with the other internal intelligence of other countries we are notay that

allowed to spy on our citizens d theiry're not allowe citizens, but we can spy on there is an they can spy on hours? so that neither one of them is breaking the law? guest: that is a good observation. that has always been the case there's been a program in which governments including the united australia newn, zealand and canada have been closely sharing information that if i can't spy on my own citizens, you can give me the information and vice versa. but i am reminded of in this case is the police commissioner from casablanca that said i'm shocked there is gambling going on at the same time some enhancing winnings. everyone in this country knows that espionage and intel is going on so they are not shocked

that the u.s. is gathering intel. withre more concerned offending the united states and that they agreed to down the plan selected circuit. -- host: republican caller. i thought wikileaks was a great thing to bring out troops that -- truths that people need to know about just like the war on drugs is just what that is a much higher murder rate than the prohibition of alcohol. you can buy a legal drugs from inmates in prison. 38 guards come up with illegal drugs in their system.

some of those guys make more money selling drugs than they do under paychecks. host: i think he is saying they are doing a service by exposing. guest: i think that is true. the goal of wikileaks when it was created, to open governments everywhere is a very noble goal. the question is whether the means to the end that they have done is violated the laws of certain countries and so forth. i still think they have a lot of support incredibly. i think it's hard to separate the actions of julian assange from the organization which makes it murkier. host: how has the globetrotting antics of julian assange distracted from the real debates. and also we talk about the leakers, but not the government's violation of the constitution. guest: whether the government violated the constitution is up

for debate because we do not know what they are doing. i think that is true and that the globetrotting antics is a very good way of describing assange and snowden which is of securing issues including to mistake surveillance -- domestic surveillance. it is also important to look at with the nsa does overseas in terms of spying on people and whether it is for governments or foreign citizens. i think there is be if thorough airing of what is going on there. i think that is being obscured which is too bad. also the work of wikileaks, if you look back at the rack disclosed -- the iraq disclosures that they had in the afghan document and the state department cables they released, they are fascinating documents and it is a true public service to open them up. host: classified programs will

be challenging court, at least five cases have been fat -- filed in federal court. the phone internet records were revealed last month. this is thatss on these cases will be long extensive and fruitless. i could be wrong, but i think whether it is the ninth circuit which is fairly liberal or the much more conservative ones in virginia tend to side with the government on this. the government claims state secrets and i can't disclose information. i'm waiting to see what happens, but i don't think you'll get a lot of disclosure for years, if ever. host: there is a piece the new york times this morning about the solicitor general go into this up in court and writes on october 29 about seven months before the recent revelation about secret government surveillance, the solicitor

general made a commitment to the supreme court. it was a day of hurricane sandy and the work of washington was shut down but the justices made it to court and they paid particular attention when the obama admin efficient top appellate lawyer challenged that a law should be dismissed. he said in retrospect that the human rights group who sought to challenge the law had no particular reason to think there can indication is were being collected. what do you think happened in given that the solicitor general made this argument to the justices that they had no ascension to believe -- ascension to believe? and then they went on to ask them is there anybody had standing to bring a case like this before our court or any other current -- court. guest: i think you have to prove damages in a case like this and

you have to prove that something happened to you as a result of this. if you can find out what they are doing, you do not have enough detail to do that. in order to have a case that would actually be successful in this situation, you have to prove with some level of detail the kind of thing you cannot prove until you get permission you are seeking through the lawsuit. one thing we've seen in this is that government lawyers and administrators are very good at using verbal gymnastics to get around the truth. one of the biggest cases of this is in you had a testify -- some and testify before and deny any activity was happening and it seems clear that he was lying at the time according to credits -- critics. it appears he was, but he said he gave the least untruthful answer he could because of the classified information that was involved. caller.mocratic

say it i just want to will be short and sweet. i think snowden is a traitor to the united states and i wish russia would send him back. he was to go to these other countries that don't have as much freedoms as we do. i hope you will be sent there and maybe they will do with them what i would like to. that is all i have to say. guest: well, i will not get into the middle of that one. i think what you're saying reflects a lot of the opinions of people of the united states. there was a quote recently is that a lot of people feel quite differently. they are clearly saying he's not a traitor, that he's doing a service.public

creating a topic of discussion and debate that is important. that is up to individuals to decide which with a phone that. i think a lot of people fall in the middle. i teach a class on national security and i asked my graduate students what they think and they are split 50-50. americans were surveyed if he's a traitor or whistleblower and the majority called him a whistle -- it whistleblower and not a traitor. he's ai don't think whistleblower in the traditional sense of the word, there are legal definitions of that. is someone who talks straight from the nsa and tries to exhaust all internal mechanisms first. you go to your supervisor or the inspector general or even to congress. i think snowden skipped those steps and went directly to the public. do you think he is a

journalist, and should he be protected as one? guest: no, i think he worked as a journalist, but is acting capacity as a government official. i think he was essentially a source for reporters, but not a journalist. i think it would be a mistake to label him as one. host: and what about glenn greenwald of the guardian? what about his role? guest: i think glenn is absolutely a journalist. he is much more of a muckraking journalist where you are trying to articulate an agenda. i think he should be protected as such. when the bigger problems is there is not a shield law that protects journalists when it comes to this. there is a case where the government went after a fox news

reporter for espionage and that is a whole another can of worms as well. the: josh meyer, he's global security correspondent in 2012.z started he's also the director of education outreach for the national security journalism initiative. we are talking about wikileaks. aw hard would it be to become copycat on the level of wikileaks? guest: i think there are other organizations doing the same thing. one of the things that wikileaks did at the beginning when it first launched is established an online dropbox for people to themely secretly mail confidential documents. i think there are others that

are trying to do that as well. i think once of the barn was open when it comes to this, there will be a lot of other outfits and organizations that do that. i think you're seeing newspapers that are following wikileaks and saying please send us your anonymous tips and e-mails and documents and we will protect them and send them to these channels. i think they started the trend. host: will go to larry in alabama, the public in color. caller: i would just like to know where the outrages from the then and from the left now when it was first in office? and i could really ignorant, or what? guest: no, that is a good question. if president bush and his administration have done some of the things obama is doing -- i

think you're talking maliki investigations and prosecutions, right? i think there would have been a huge cry if that had happened. one of the reason the obama administration has been so aggressive in terms of going after leakers is that they are kind you bend over backwards to show they are tough on national security issues. but even the attorney general has said they might have gone too far in these cases and their kind you come up with more intermediate response. host: frank in california and got a client. -- democratic line. caller: i think a trader should be persecuted -- is hillery clinton because of what she did in palestine and how she represented israelis in the u.s. and -- and the u.n. and does not represent the u.s. so well. guest: i think that is a little

bit off point. case -- if you're managing a fortune 500 company, like the state department, it is hard to blame the person at the top 40 events on the ground that were happening in real time. whether the response to that was happened appropriately or not is a different issue. i'm not sure the whole palestine can't -- question fits in. in, butot sure the tie- we will leave it at that. let me ask you about one component that we have not talked about yet. and hisbradley manning -- explain where his trial stands and what role wikileaks applying and it -- playing in it. guest: the government brought 80 witnesses in this case and they have launched a very aggressive

prosecution. willcutors have said it not seek the death penalty if he is convicted, but they will throw the book at him to make it clear they do not condone this behavior. chickenlear -- if the and the egg thing whether they were telling him to give them information or if you wanted to do it. but they were clearly associating this -- facilitating this. they are joined pretty closely on this case. host: and what is next with that? where does the trial go? guest: i think we wait and see what happens next. i would be curious to see -- a lot of information in the case has not gotten out to the public and i think there needs to be a thorough airing. was interesting is the snowden

case has shined a light on bradley manning. here is edward snowden releasing much more damaging information comprising a secret surveillance program. when you look at what manning released, it was existing documents and not how we are getting information. you can make an argument that was snowden is doing is more interest in what manning did. snowden info is covered under whistleblower law from twitter. guest: that's possible, but calling him journalist is different than a whistleblower. that is one of the element of the law that needs to be adjudicated. lawyer, but'm not a i've heard other people say is not covered as well. host: george, independent line.

take -- my take, i have to respect and admire and pull for anyone who speaks truth . i can't get past that. it's the truth and you don't like it, that's your fault -- your problem. as far as the government, they do not like having since exposed -- sins exposed. host: all right, stanley republican caller. caller: i would like to make a point that without the government having some sort of countryon, would in our be more unsafe? we have a right to know in a right to know we are protected. that they are doing things that

we do not know but sometimes. guest: that is a good question and observation. in the intelligence community, they call it sources and methods and that is when the most dangerous things to expose. givingre people who are them permission to the israeli government a decade ago was accused of giving sources and methods and that is the one line that people are not post across that copper misers are national security -- copper misers are national security. whether we are to be off the chinese or each other and in gathering strategic information. as a journalist, i'm the first to agree secrets should remain secret. the question is where that how you started balance between what remains secret. classified to is a level where it is over

classified and there are too many secrets in the government. are: if you want to follow josh meyer's work you can do so at prior at josh meyer d.c.. to a democratic call er. caller: this is probably reiterating, but as a consensus which one of us wants to be blown up due to the fact that these secrets weren't effective. now we have little things multiplied and i wonder if some of these generals are willing to stand of the finish line when the pressure cookers are being blown up by these that we do not catch. anyone who knows anything about the world wars and back to the civil war, we have always had

means were kind of we have standards in order to intercept terrorist attempts or criminal attempts. i do not know where these folks want to be. have names, but i understand there closing it down. guest: i think the difference between world war i and world war ii there was an end to those hostilities and a negotiated settlement. the question is is the war on terrorism and war? your base we sang it is a war against ideology and can you ever declare an end to that? and if you can't declare an end to it come a can you justify such extraordinary measures continuing for a long. of time. israel pakistan at is in need to see how they do it and a lot of them are treated like a

law-enforcement problem and not a military problem. in israel, they prosecute people -- in europe in particular the prosecutors going criminal courts, they do not bring them to guantanamo. i think there needs to be a balance and that is what critics are saying is that the u.s. government has gone too far and the pendulum needs to swing back the other way. i try to withhold judgment because i'm a reporter and report the facts. that is where we are in terms of an argument. host: for lawler -- fort lauderdale, religion. caller: it seems it may we are pretty cut and dry. he took how many computers full of information and he is basically throwing it out there and offering it for sale to the highest bidder. speaks to the

lackadaisical security ongoing of the nsa. why is this information even allowed to be transferred to a portable computer? would you like to comment on that? guest: there are two observations are. the first one, you said something people would disagree with which is that he's announcing this information is for sale. there's been no indication that he is trying to turn over the information to china or russia or that he is trying to make money off of it. i'm not defending him, he's not putting it out there for sale. todoes look like he's going great length to keep the information encrypted and keep it so it does not get out there. the question is which i think is a very good one is, what kind of security lapses allow this to happen. ravi manning was overseas, a low-level guy and he is an intelligence analyst so how did

he get such classified information? and then years later, he figured the government would try to plug these loopholes and somebody like edward snowden who is in hawaii at a contractor outpost is able to get the most extraordinarily secret government documents. heads should roll for this and maybe snowden is one of them, but whoever the supervisors work and the people in charge of information security, there has to be a serious damage assessment and investigation. ganey and alabama is watching us. -- danny. caller: will one thing you said a while ago is that if this had been bush, democrats would have been all up in arms. illegal that bush did wire tapping and commerce had you read flag it to stop it.

i think you'll find that this guy -- he said he went into this job to gather this information. i think you'll find julian assange and wikileaks behind this from the beginning. guest: or he could've done it on his own. this is an atomic students, especially the ones want to go into investigative reporting. there are two theories that guide this behavior. one is conspiracy terry and the other is chaos theory. i was go by chaos theory which is don't look for conspiracies everywhere, but a lot of times it's just the way things happen. i think things spiral out of control. he decided he wants to go to the government and he was not doing it in some secret liaison with a nefarious force. it is probably he just did it himself which is a serious issue

in and of itself. host: you said earlier there are ties between wikileaks and edward snowden. and that none of their lawyers had accompanied him on his flight from hong kong. a researcher, kidney. -- excuse me. wikileaks has this money that it has? guest: i believe there are financial ties, there could be supporting edwards noted. -- edward snowden. him have been speaking for and saying when things will happen and so forth. one of the most important things about wikileaks is it that there was a blockade in which the car companies were not allowing their services to be used to raise money for which you can almost put them out of this mess. -- out of business.

and one of the companies said we will finally allow funding for the wikileaks to reopen. if you try to strip away from all the little rhetoric from what assange says and wikileaks, at the heart of it, something they are doing are important for opening up governments to accept secrecy in the right way. the question is whether the expanded their agenda. mastercard to lift their blockade against wiki leaks area did an independent caller, hello, barbara. last time i looked, we all lived in the united states of america.